BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 11th December 2015
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 215/2015
Complainant/s: Suresh s/o. Tammannasa Bakale, Age: 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Timsagar Temple Road, 1st Cross, Vidya Nagar, Near Sindhur Hospital, Vidya Nagar, Hubballi.
(By Sri.P.V.Sankanagoudar, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s: SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Senior Manager, (Assessing), No.3/1, Rukmini Towers, Platform Road, Opp. Mantri Mall, Seshadripuram, Bengaluru 560020.
(By Sri.G.N.Raichur, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.6 lakhs with interest @12% along with cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is the owner of Skoda Rapid car bearing registration no.KA 25 Z 9504 & the same was insured with respondent under package policy 0000000001821673 covering the risk for the period 10.06.2014 to 09.06.2015. On 25.10.2014 while the complainant was proceeding to Bangalore along with his family at about 4.15 PM near Bankapur cross on NH4 the complainant saw brake barriers near toll gate as such complainant slow down the car. At that time one white colour Maruti swift car came from behind and dashed against the car of the complainant on its hind portion as a consequence the dicky portion of the skoda rapid car was totally damaged. The drive of the said white swift car suddenly took turn and escaped towards Hubli within a fraction of second. The said white swift car was not having any number plate & also the complainant could not see the face of the driver of the said car. In the complainant’s car along with his wife one person Sri.Manjunath Sinde was also accompanied with the complainant in the said car, but car was driven by complainant himself. At the time of accident it was rainy and also due to the said accident the complainant was very panic. Thereafter the complainant went to Bankapur police station and lodged complaint under crime no.0162/14 dt.25.10.2014. While recording the statement the police have wrongly noted the name of Manjunath Sinde as the driver of the complainant’s car at the time of accident. The said Manjunath was not at all on the steering. Complainant got repaired the said vehicle by spending Rs.2,35,510/- & the vehicle was lying idle for 6-7 months in the garage. Though the claim was legal and inspite of repeated requests and demands claim of the complainant is not settled by the respondent. The respondent is harping only upon the license point but case is purely based on hit and run theory case. The cause of action for the present complaint arose on negative reply dt.05.01.2015 given by the respondent to the notice of the complainant dt.24.11.2014. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. While the respondent admits issuance of the policy, coverage of the risk in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. While the respondent disputes with regard to the way and manner of accident caused and loss and claim & also denied the involvement of white colour Maruti swift car as alleged in the alleged accident & puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. Further the respondent disputes the events subsequent to the accident and also denied the time of the accident, wrong entry of the name of one Sri. Manjunath Shinde as driver of the car, asserting the said Manjunath was driving the vehicle and at the time he was not possessed valid DL to drive the same contending that all the records including other documentary evidence at the relevant time Manjunath Shinde was driving the vehicle. Further the respondent also dispute the repair charges of Rs.2,35,510/- and idle of the car in the garage from 6-7 months and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. Since the complainant allowed the vehicle to drive by the person who is not possessing valid DL as required by the Rule.3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules the complainant violated the policy conditions as such not entitled for any relief. Further the respondent disputes deficiency in service contending that after submission of the claim the complainant was called for production of the relevant documents but were not produced. The respondent only by appointing investigator collected all the required documents and also by deputing the surveyor report was obtained. The investigator report coupled with surveyor report reveals the driver of the complainant’s car was not possessing valid DL as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief. Further the respondent also disputes the jurisdiction of this Forum to adjudicate the matter and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit. The complainant adduced additional evidence of 2 other witnesses. Both have relied on documents. Apart from argument respondent filed notes of argument. Both have relied on citations. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
1. Negatively
2. Negatively
3. As per order
Reasons
Points 1 and 2
5. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant’s vehicle was covered with the insurance policy of the respondent to the date of accident subject to terms and conditions of the policy.
6. Now the question to be determined is, whether the repudiation of the claim amounts to deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
7. The complainant except cooked out story of hit and run did not adduce any evidence to show that as narrated by the complainant the unknown car viz., white colour Maruti swift car came from the rear side and hit the complainant’s car and rund out. So also except oral evidence the complainant did not led any evidence to show that the driver Manjunath Shinde was not driving the vehicle and complainant himself was driving the same at the time of incident.
8. On the other side the respondent case is that at the time of accident complainant was not driving the vehicle one Manjunath Shinde was driving, he was not possessing valid DL to drive the same at the relevant time. Hence, asserted the respondent is justified in repudiating the claim. In support of this contention the respondent relied on Ex.R3 statement before the police by the complainant and also FIR Ex.R4. Wherein both the document Ex.R3 and R4 reveals that at the relevant time of the accident one Manjunath Shinde was driving the vehicle and not complainant as contended by the complainant. Ex.R3 is the complaint lodged by the complainant himself immediately after the accident to the Bankapur police station. Wherein the said, complaint the complainant specifically mentioned the driver Manjunath Shinde was driving the said vehicle and he himself picked up the said driver from Hubli to go to Bangalore along with his family in the said car. Under those circumstances whatever the contention that taken by the complainant that the police have wrongly noted the name of the Manjunath Shinde instead entering his name will be a bull and cock story. If it is true, no impediment left to complainant immediately after lodging complaint the complainant could have rectified the said mistake but have not rectified the same. After came to know that the said Manjunath Shinde was not possessing valid DL to drive, the complainant as an after thought in order to have claim built up new story of hit and run and taken defence that he only driving the car and not Manjunath Shinde and the police have wrongly entered his name in the FIR.
9. The very contention of the respondent is that respondent has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant contending that though the complainant was called for produce the documents (as per Ex.C-8) of both complainant and Manjunath Shinde’s driving particulars the complainant did not produced the same as such the respondent appointed investigator and obtained all the documents thereafter surveyor was appointed and final report was obtained. Further the respondent mainly relied on Ex.R7 the LLR of Manjunath Shinde, it was issued for the period 06.06.2013 to 05.02.2014 & the accident in question aroused on 25.10.2014. Even LLR also expires prior to the date of accident and no documents were produced by the complainant to show that the said LLR was renewed for further period nor the said Manjunath Shinde had been issued with pakka DL and to the date of accident he had possess valid DL. Taking into all these facts the respondent contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and asserted the justification in repudiating the claim. In support of this contention the respondent relied on RP 165/2009 Chandigad SCDRC- 2004 (2) CPJ N C, First appeal 130/12 Uttarkhand Chandigad SCDRC & FA 370/08 State Commission Chennai.
10. In reply to the argument of the respondent pro contra the LC for complainant opposing the contention of the respondent contended complainant himself was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and the accident was occurred at the instance of the other vehicle. Even taking into consideration of Manjunath Shinde was driving the vehicle submits the complainant is entitled for the relief. In support of this contention and argument learned counsel for complainant relied and produced 2011 ACJ 2823 Alahabad High Court, ACJ 2015 389 High Court of Karnataka, 2012 ACJ 1838 High Court of Madhyapradesh, 2012 ACJ 1484 High Court of Madhyapradesh, 2012 ACJ 2025 of High Court of Karnataka. whereas the relied cases of complainant are all of claim pertaining to the 3rd party claim, whereas the instant case is of OD claim & the learned counsel for respondent opposed for consideration of those citations relied by the complainant. Among the citations relied by the complainant 2012 ACJ 1838 High Court of Madhyapradesh, 2012 ACJ 2025 of High Court of Karnataka wherin those judgments their lordships allowed the claim with a direction to the insurer to settle the claim of the petitioners then to reimburse the same from the owner. In reply to this the learned counsel for respondent those are aged old decisions as per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court except High Court and Supreme Courts no other courts could pass judgment allowing the insurer to settle the claim and to reimburse the same from the owner and submits even then those citations are not applicable to this complaint is concerned submitting that the present complaint is hopelessly out of judicature to allow for the reason the complainant allowed the person to drive who is not possessing valid DL to drive as per Rule.3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules which results violation of terms and conditions of policy. Viewed from any angle based on the pleadings, evidence, documentary evidence relied and citations relied by both the parties the respondent justified in repudiating the claim interalia complainant failed to establish his case of deficiency in service against the respondent. Hence, complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.
11. In view of the above discussions we inclined to held issue 1 and 2 in negative.
12. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 11th day of December 2015)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
